Should Christians be hated?

[plaingirly]

Random question! I opened my Bible on Matthew 10 and verse 22 says :

And all nations will hate you because you are my followers. But everyone who endures to the end will be saved.

I think there is another verse similar but can't remember it.

So if someone is really a follower of Jesus will people hate them and if people don't hate them are they not strong enough in their faith?

I don't really want to be hated! Also at work we have to get along with people so having them hate us wouldn't be ideal. Unless the verses are more specific or maybe aimed at the disciples.

Italiangreyhound: if you went through all the well-known stories of all the cultures in the world, you would probably find as many, if not more, that deal with 'magic' creatures such as fairies/pixies/djinn as those that deal with gods. Up until fairly recently, in the UK, people believed in fairies and elves alongside Jesus and the saints. It just turned out that the people with power, who wanted to retain power or acquire more, settled (in the UK at least) on a monotheistic myth system as the more effective variety. Perhaps it's easier to control the masses when they have to attend the local superstition house once a week and be given their orders, rather than allowing them to negotiate on a freelance basis with a whole population of imaginary friends and enemies.

headinhands was that comment for me? If so, I am not sure what you are asking.

SGB I am not sure what you are saying, are you saying there are just as many stories about magic and fairies as there are God/'gods' or are you saying there are more about God and this is just to control people?

My point was that stories about fairies etc are not meant to be taken seriously generally (apologies to anyone who does). My dd believes in fairies and Santa Claus but I am sure she will not when she is older.

Churches and government don't always agree on stuff, in fact some churches are very revoluntionary, what about liberation theology in Latin America, that is not about controlling the masses?

My point was that stories about fairies etc are not meant to be taken seriously generally

Tell that to the Celtic folk religions, or the Faerie Wicca.

Just because more recently there are children's tales about fairies doesn't mean no one ever took them seriously. Maybe in a couple of centuries we'll have fairy tales about monotheists and their gingerbread churches, who knows.

Regarding fairies and people believing in them:

This had a lot of people fooled for quite a long time....including Conan Doyle. A superb example of the gullibility of people and their willingness to believe precisely what they want to, in the complete absence of common sense or reason.

I said 'My point was that stories about fairies etc are not meant to be taken seriously generally.'

I don't think most people take them seriously now, and I would imagine that most people didn't take them seriously before (in the past). I am sure some people have taken them seriously and as I say my daughter definitely believes in them now.

I am not sure exactly what point we are debating here.

I think (please correct me if I am wrong SGB ) that there is an assumption that fairies are just as important as God/gods, just as believed in, or just as written about.

Assuming SGB is an atheist (please correct me if I am wrong) this means that none of them are true.

So rather than writing to 'defend' any kind of mythical creatures, the aim is to put them all on the same level, God and fairies! I totally get it, I just don't agree with it. The argument was expanded to include magic of any kind.

I don't think that it is true now or ever has ever been true that fairies and the like have had as much influence on the world as religion but I understand that there are some areas where these cross over - in the sense that there are some belief systems that include magic etc.

However, taking SGB point that It just turned out that the people with power, who wanted to retain power or acquire more, settled (in the UK at least) on a monotheistic myth system as the more effective variety. Perhaps it's easier to control the masses when they have to attend the local superstition house once a week and be given their orders, rather than allowing them to negotiate on a freelance basis with a whole population of imaginary friends and enemies. So, if it were true that fairies and magic were as influential as God, I could ask why (if all the 'authorities' wanted to do was control people) didn't they encourage belief in fairies and magic instead of God?

Yes, Ellie, I love the story of Cottingley Fairies. Indeed people do often believe what they want to believe. To me the idea that we are totally alone in the universe as 'higher' beings (humans) and that there is no spiritual realm at all is just as totally implausable as the idea of fairies. So for the record I don't believe in fairies, it's me who puts the £1 under my daughter's pillow, and I wonder if she already suspects but is keeping quiet until all her baby teeth are gone!

I understand that to people who do not believe in God or anything spiritual at all, the idea of God is on the same level as fairies, magic, aliens and all the rest of that type of stuff, but to be honest that is way too simplistic. Of course, I say this with respect as I know several of you think this.

Don't you ever wonder if there is something you are missing out on?

Be gentle with me! If you choose to answer!

OK, SGB, apologies, I missed that point where you said Perhaps it's easier to control the masses when they have to attend the local superstition house once a week and be given their orders, rather than allowing them to negotiate on a freelance basis with a whole population of imaginary friends and enemies, even though I repeated it! .

So you mean that belief in fairies etc was just as widespread as belief in God but the authorities chose God because it was easier to use that to control people? I think that God was believed in by people because they felt it was true and also for society it contained a useful moral code etc which did make society better. But sorry I did miss your original point and I acknowledge it, even though I don't agree with it.

Oh dear. Now we are in New World Order land. I bloody hate NWO land. Who are 'the authorities', SGB? (There are no 'authorities' - central government was incredibly weak, though sometimes vicious, in the late Empire to the late Middle Ages... the time when Christianity was strongest. If you mean the Emperor Constantine, his decree only worked because there were already so many believers - and you can tell because Julian the Apostate tried to turn the Empire back to paganism to NO avail - oddly, I can't help loving Julian... who dies saying, 'you have conquered, Galilean.')

And actually people DID once take stories about fairies very seriously. They weren't always stories about cute tiny critters, but stories about vampire-like dead people - try a few Child ballads.

Conversely, people told stories about Jesus and the apostles that they KNEW were made up, but funny. There's an incredibly series of them in Calvino's Italian folktales. Mocking St Peter as a big stupid oaf.. :)

Finally, SGB, lots of neopagans do believe in the ancient Greek and Norse gods. Please stop generalising.

Siegelinde: Superstition was just one of the means used by each local king/baron/whatever to keep the populace in line. It's not that important which superstitions were favoured: sometimes fighting over the brand of superstition was used as a way of one power-hungry bully replacing another.

And it's not me claiming that stories of supernatural beings other than officially-sanctioned gods were never taken seriously - the fact that similar themes show up in every culture shows quite the opposite. And the roots of belief in fairies and ghosts are no different to the roots of belief in gods - concern with what happens when you die, a wish to be able to influence events that you actually have no power over, searching for patterns and rules and explanations of random events, etc. OK some of these stories are about teaching and enforcing rules so perhaps the individual tales were never believed nor presented as true, but the concepts were accepted.

For me, it's very simple.....

Evidence for fairies/leprechauns/Santa/Nessie = 0

Evidence for God = 0

In this respect, they are comparable.

The evidence we all use to justify our lack of belief in fairies is the identical evidence I use to justify my lack of belief in any god.

Ellie, just to be clear, a. I am agnostic about fairies, as this seems to me a rational response to the lack of evidence in my experience and the testimonials offered by others b. I agree that fairies and the deities of established religions can readily be compared on an evidential basis. c. Comparison is not the same as conflation, and the term 'sky fairy' implies conflation.

SGB, using terms such as 'superstition', 'populace' and 'power-hungry' begs questions (in the true sense of assuming the answer is known) rather than addressing them. I think it would help if you gave an example of what you mean from the early to high middle ages. A real, concrete example.

On that basis, I am agnostic about God. And aliens in the universe. And whether Nessie exists. I don't agree that it implies conflation, which would have us assuming we're talking about distinct entities. They are not distinct to me. But that's me...I know they are for you. And I get what you're saying.

SGB who is claiming fairy stories were never taken seriously? I am just saying they are not comparable with religion (to me and I would hazard a guess to most people).

Ellie are you agnostic now?

SolidGoldBrass, while it might be true to say that in some respects, in some places and some times religion has been used as a means of social control, that has not been its only function. A mere glance at medieval literature, or at the culture of black rebellion in the states, or at the history of choral music would show that Christianity (to give an example of only one faith) has had many different functions for its adherents, and that social control by the ruling elite has been only one of them -- a relatively minor one at that.

Italiangreyhound - what do you think is the difference between 'fairy story' and 'religion'? You are a Christian so you think that the Christian myths are true - what about the myths of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs etc - are they 'religions' or 'fairy stories' in your opinion (given that as a Christian you don't believe in Allah, Rama, Ganesh etc).

Agnosticism and atheism are answers to different questions, Italian.

Agnosticism refers to knowledge, atheism to belief. I have never claimed knowledge, but I (really, really, really) don't believe.

I am as agnostic towards God as I am towards Santa....who I don't "know" doesn't exist either.

SGB IMHO Religions are ways to get to God, to relate to God or, in the case of some religions, gods. Fairy stories are told to entertain, perhaps to educate. Maybe in the past they would have had more 'power' or meaning.

Other religions are other religions, they are way in which people try to relate to God, and fairy stories are still, in my mind, what I just said.

Are you asking if I believe other religions? I believe them in as much as they agree with what I believe, and I expect a lot of of other people who are 'religious' might say something similar.

Ellie, does that mean that you really, really, really believe that there is no god?

Italian, I agree - that is, anyone of any faith can hardly discard other religions. Surely no believing RC can dismiss Judaism?

Santa used to be a saint, btw. Santa actually means saint. St Nicholas has a history. He in all likelihood really existed. Once.

Yes, Dione.

My evidence that there is no god?

The lack of evidence demonstrating that there is one. The same evidence that leads me to conclude that leprechauns don't exist.

Shall I continue and save you the time? "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"?

Rubbish. The absence of evidence that we might reasonably expect to see is evidence of absence.

Person A: I have an African elephant living in my front room.
Person B: Goodness me. Let me check this out.

Person B finds a) no elephant, b) no elephant dung, c) no elephant footprints, d) no half eaten buns and e) a neat, undisturbed living room.

Person B concludes, on the absence of evidence, that there is no elephant residing in that living room.

Oh - and personal revelation is not "evidence", unless you can reliably demonstrate it to another person.

But what of the man in 1600 who says 'there is no other living thing in the room', when the room is absolutely full of microorganisms? Much of what we know depends on what we can see.

Are you suggesting you can literally see god? If not, I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm pointing out the limits of empiricism at any particular time or place.

That said, people HAVE claimed to see/hear God ((and gods).

So you think that in the future, with the development of better techniques, we may find cartesian evidence for the existence of god? I didn't think this was consistent with christian beliefs. That said I'm stronger on empiricism than theology.